Standards

Amit   Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:38 am GMT
Even though there are some differences in usage between British English, American English, Indian English, etc., is it not a good idea to demand one standard for areas of science? Take Chemistry, for example. Isn't is wise to insist on one form of spelling for all words used in that area?
furrykef   Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:02 am GMT
Why?
Pos   Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:35 am GMT
Why not?
furrykef   Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:33 pm GMT
Because that brings culture/politics into things for no reason. Brits don't want to use American spelling, and vice versa. We have a pretty awkward situation on Wikipedia where an article uses whichever dialect it was originally written in, unless the subject is inextricably linked with a dialect (it would seem inappropriate to write about Monty Python or Queen Elizabeth II in American English, for example). The results are ugly, but they're better than having people constantly whine -- or whinge -- that they can't use their dialect.

There is even less benefit to applying such a rule broadly to an entire field than to a single work such as Wikipedia. It could be argued that an encyclopedia should at least be stylistically consistent with itself, but that doesn't mean all encyclopedias around the world should use the same style.

- Kef
Milton   Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:25 pm GMT
Most medical literature is in American English...Even Canadian-made medical books use the US spelling...(I just bought a book published by a Elsevier Canada, written by a professor from Nova Scotia, and the spelling used is American)...British spelling just looks ''weirds'' FOETUS instead of FETUS and so on...FOETUS is incorrect, in fact.

In medical article database like Pubmed, using American spelling is a must, since your search might not give any results if you use British spellings...in British Medical Journal British spellings are Ok, but for international publications in medicine US spellings are preferred.
furrykef   Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:56 pm GMT
<< In medical article database like Pubmed, using American spelling is a must, since your search might not give any results if you use British spellings >>

That's more of a fault with the database searching software than it is with the article text... it should be simple to make "color" also match "colour", etc.

- Kef
Amit   Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:30 pm GMT
<In medical article database like Pubmed, using American spelling is a must, since your search might not give any results if you use British spellings...in British Medical Journal British spellings are Ok, but for international publications in medicine US spellings are preferred. >

So you agree with a move to one standard, am I right? We should move to the American standard you are saying?
Pos   Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:31 pm GMT
<Because that brings culture/politics into things for no reason.>

How so? Would you suggest that international air traffic control ceases its mission to standardise the English used in that area?
Gabriel   Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:25 pm GMT
<<In medical article database like Pubmed, using American spelling is a must, since your search might not give any results if you use British spellings>>

Really? I just went to Pubmed, (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez) and typed in HUMOUR first and then HUMOR. I got back 15075 articles for both. That took only 10 seconds. Since we're talking about science, verifying your claims before submitting them could be a good idea.
M56   Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:18 pm GMT
<In a chemistry journal, reading 'colour' as opposed to 'color' is not likely to cause a problem.>

I think we were talking about scientific language, Josh.
M56   Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:44 pm GMT
<Taking a couple seconds to interpret a different spelling is not a major problem when reading a journal or report, unlike in air traffic control. >

So would you disagree with the Royal Society of Chemistry's decision (Nov. 2000) to accept "sulfur" as the standard spelling?
Amit   Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:04 pm GMT
I was wondering why the standard is recommended as "sulfur", as shown here, and yet the same persons also recommended "aluminium" as a standard.
M56   Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:07 pm GMT
And caesium instead of cesium was recommended, Amit. Why, I don't know.
M56   Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:32 pm GMT
<'Sulfur' was generally written with 'f' in Latin, and is possibly of Germanic origin, so the 'ph' is spurious. >

I understood that Latin used both forms, the "F" and the "ph".

<'Caesium' is based on the Latin 'caesius', so the 'ae' spelling is more historic (though I still favour 'cesium'). >

As do I. The "ae" use is an odd choice as the Greek ae and oe forms are the minority in scientific use.
Rodrigo (COL)   Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:39 am GMT
I don't know exactly the name, it appears extensively throughout wikipedia, there's an international organisation which says which spelling to use. Search Sulfur or Alluminium in Wikikpedia and it'll probably appear. Anyway the symbols were made to be understood in any language so for that matter it also works between dialects.